Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Didn't they repay the government over half of the stimulus money so far?

I'm not sure. I would hope so, considering they have been posting record earnings since late summer.

That doesn't change that they are dodging their contribution to society here in the states, while taking advantage of us. That they took the stimulus money and used it to aquire positions or control in other companies I don't really care about.

It is that they take the gains in this society and then don't pay back the taxes owed, instead using loopholes they fund the creation of to avoid contributing back to society.

Or is 1% too much in taxes for a major corporation these days? It is getting hard to tell.

I heard a good interview today with Naomi Prins author of "It takes a Pillage" (she used to work for Goldman Sachs-7yrs.) she was being interviewed by Senator Bernie Sanders on book TV,she said that those people at Goldman's act like they live in their own little world,they have no remorse for their greed,and they certainly don't care about us. it makes you wonder ?

Sure. Money was paid back, but 32:1 leverage is still unacceptable and should be uninsurable. Those swaps still exist to keep them afloat. All it did was pay their interest payment until they could create more investments to make the payment themselves. None of it is technically profit when there is still principal owed.

Hank Paulson was on all sides of this. Until someone can reassure me that son-of-a-bitch did not manipulate the entire thing all the way back to his time with Goldman Sachs, I'm considering it to be a bad situation swept under the rug. He was instrumental in the lifting of the capital requirements for companies like Goldman and the other now defunct investment firms.

If I loan someone $1,000, expect payments of $100 for 12 months, and buy insurance on $1,200 for $10 a month and the person defaults then should I get my $1,000 back at all? Guaran-goddamn-tee it doesn't happen like that for the rest of us no matter how much of a 'systemic risk' I am.

None of them is expected to repay the money they received from AIG in the form of insurance settlement money from the credit default insurance. That is just as much taxpayer money as TARP was. That's why they're down to ONLY being leveraged 32:1. They were 46:1 prior to receiving the money from AIG and the acquisition of Barclays troubled assets that are now seeing stimulus from European countries.

In a nutshell, they are the systemic risk that they pose to themselves and one way or another they're still getting bailed out by tax dollars better spent on the country as a whole.

I can't find the post now, but HisWillness and I pointed out that when they changed their status to bank holding instead of investment bank, they were going to get the tax breaks.

Let's also not forget that Paulson was in on the ARRA, including the section on tax abatement including asset deferral for up to five years. The section ARRTA in the stimulus bill allows them to closet their bad assets until needed for reporting up to five years. They still get to collect on the default insurance, but don't have to pay taxes on the money received from the insurance until they report the asset as in default to the government. It's free money short-term that they will use to try to accrue more debt to do it again or make the troubled assets profitable. Currently, we don't have the regulations in place to prevent them from doing the former. If I were a greedy capitalist(is there a different kind) and had five years to parlay my way into a sweeet retirement without fear of accountability then THAT is exactly what I would do...

go out and get another $1,000 loan to make a couple of months payments on the others and call the rest profit while buying insurance on myself for my expected/planned default for the rest of the loan.

Since I have all of the debt, I can declare it on my taxes as an operating loss even though my balance sheet just shows it as leveraged.

I wasn't talking about whether or not they paid back money from a stimulus, OR their bad policies as a company.

I was talking about their record profits and setting up with offshore accounts in international tax havens, as well as what darth said above with the change of status, resulting in them paying a 1% tax rate back to society. That is stealing from the American Public they do business with.

In other countries this kind of thing wouldn't be allowed. They are blatantly working the system, with complete disregard for everyone else.

I was talking about their record profits and setting up with offshore accounts in international tax havens, as well as what darth said above with the change of status, resulting in them paying a 1% tax rate back to society. That is stealing from the American Public they do business with.

“Record profits” is not a crime. The point of doing business is to make a profit. If there was not anything to be gained, there is no point to do anything. Somewhere in the world some company is going to make record profits. Suppose every company in the world made between a $1 and $100 except for 1 company that made $101. That would make $101 the record.

What exactly is it that Goldman Sachs did wrong? Did they break the law? Which law? Is it morally wrong to make a profit? Is making record profits morally wrong? Morality is subjective. There is the world’s best football team; there is the world’s best surgeon; there is the world’s best scientific laboratory; and there is the world’s best investment banker and it looks like it is Goldman Sachs.

“Record profits” is not a crime. The point of doing business is to make a profit. If there was not anything to be gained, there is no point to do anything. Somewhere in the world some company is going to make record profits. Suppose every company in the world made between a $1 and $100 except for 1 company that made $101. That would make $101 the record.

What exactly is it that Goldman Sachs did wrong? Did they break the law? Which law? Is it morally wrong to make a profit? Is making record profits morally wrong? Morality is subjective. There is the world’s best football team; there is the world’s best surgeon; there is the world’s best scientific laboratory; and there is the world’s best investment banker and it looks like it is Goldman Sachs.

I was talking about their record profits and setting up with offshore accounts in international tax havens, as well as what darth said above with the change of status, resulting in them paying a 1% tax rate back to society.

Everything described in this quote is legal. This is business as usual. Capital flight from the US and certain high-tax-rate European countries to tax havens is the norm. For that matter, I love tax havens. I wish Hong Kong, Ireland and others the best of luck. I hope that capital flight punishes countries with high corporate tax rates. The combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the US for most states exceeds the corporate tax rates of Japan and Germany. In fact, for no state is the combined federal and state corporate tax rate lower than France's corporate tax rate. We are the first world nation with the highest, most punishing corporate tax rates. It is natural that in such an anti-business situation these companies would legally shift as much money as possible to tax havens such as Hong Kong or Ireland. They would be stupid to pay regular corporate income taxes. Let me say that again: the managers would have to be stupid and not acting in the best interests of the company to pay the full state and federal corporate tax rates.

ClockCat wrote:

In other countries this kind of thing wouldn't be allowed. They are blatantly working the system, with complete disregard for everyone else.

That is not true. This goes on in other countries. Countries such as Ireland basically get free money from other European countries thanks to those countries high tax rates. If you think of taxes as the cost of doing business in a country, what happens when another country undercuts you? What happens when Germany sets its corporate tax rate around 50% and Ireland offers tax exemptions to new businesses and a corporate tax rate of 10-25%? I guess that in such a case Germany and the US deserve to loose businesses to Ireland and that they will either choose to lower taxes or choose to endure capital flight. We are currently choosing to endure capital flight. It really hurts us, but we're too stupid to lower taxes, so we take the pain of capital flight and certain people in Ireland and Hong Kong live large on our money.

God bless Goldman Sachs, they paid back the government and they've managed to twist their finances in such a way as to legally bypass much of their all capital gains and corporate income taxes. My only regret in all this is that there isn't more capital flight away from high tax nations. Then they would be forced, kicking and screaming, into allowing businesses to thrive with less suffocating government meddling and extreme taxation.

Their profit was $2.3 billion and their estimated taxes is $14 million. That is a .6% tax rate. That is way less than 1%. Am I calculating this wrong, or are they really pulling off just six-tenths of one percent of just profit in taxes? I almost can't believe that it is that low. If we are going to use just one significant digit to describe this, it should be .6% rather than 1%.

EDIT: I just remembered something: corporate tax havens were not the source of Goldman Sachs's low tax rate. Sure, they funnel money off shore to more business-freindly countries. But that isn't why they are going to pay so little taxes. So complaining about international tax havens is tangental to this.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India

I still don't quite see a "fair share" being paid out on their end. Help me out?

For 2006 it is 5,023,000 /14,560,000 = 0.345%

leaving $9,398,000 for 449,480,000 basic shares of stock, which is about $3.46 per share in Nov. 2006. Each share was about $200 then. So that's a wooping .017% gain per share if you bought it at the price.

$12,900,000,000 from AIG bailout money went to Goldman Sachs in '08 and '09.

Anyone want to plot an ROI on that money?

the figure of $12.9 billion that AIG paid to GS post bailout is made up as follows:

$2.5 billion that AIG owed us in collateral (see above). This amount was part of AIG's obligations that had to be met to avoid an event of default. It is worth noting that 86% of AIG's collateral payments were made to firms other than Goldman Sachs.

$5.6 billion that, post bailout, AIG and the New York Federal Reserve decided to pay to buy the assets they were protecting against, so they didn't have to meet any more collateral calls. AIG and the New York Federal Reserve also bought back assets they were protecting against from other banks. These transactions were executed through a special purpose vehicle called Maiden Lane III, set up by AIG and the Federal Reserve.

$4.8 billion for highly marketable US Government Agency securities that AIG had pledged to Goldman Sachs in return for a loan of $4.8 billion. They gave us the cash, we gave them back the securities. If AIG hadn't repaid the loan, we would simply have sold the securities.

Please tell me how those companies are being punished by keeping 61-75% of their revenue.

Those numbers are BS. Let's do a tax example:

Let us assume that a profitable company that is in some service industry is based entirely in Pennsylvania (so different state income taxes won't be accessed for various parts of the company in various states). This means that they will be paying the flat 9.99% Pennsylvania corporate income tax. Separately from that, they will be paying the 35% flat federal corporate income tax for service industry companies. If they weren't a service industry company, their federal income tax would be likely between 34% and 39% for various brackets of their income unless they made less than $100,000 a year. The federal tax is levied separately from their state tax and they can not reduce either tax burden based on how much the other tax has cost them. This means that the two tax rates are additive. So, this company will be paying a 44.99% corporate income tax (let's call it an even 45% for simplicity). So they keep 55% of their profits and turn over 45% to their state and federal government. Since they are a service industry company, their state and federal taxes are flat taxes. So this example covers a tiny mom-and-pop joint and super-rich corporate fat cats making profits in the tens of millions. This 45% tax rate is brutal. And that doesn't include the other taxes and fees that they would have to pay to keep a business open. This punishing assault on their business would make them do every legal thing within their power to shirk paying their taxes. If they were wise and it was feasible for their business, they could open up offices in Ireland or Hong Kong and keep corporate profits earned there away from the extreme 45% tax rate that we would rape them with.

This is why capital flight exists. This is why money and corporate headquarters are moved out of the US and certain high-tax-rate European countries. We strangle the life out of them as hard as we can and then we get mad when they flee to a more business-friendly land. So yes, jcgadfly, we are punishing them in my opinion. We punish them so hard that it is very easy for other countries to undercut us and take our businesses. The higher our corporate tax rates are, the wiser it will be for US companies to shelter their income in tax havens or move their headquarters overseas.

Eloise wrote:

Jormangunder wrote:

Then they would be forced, kicking and screaming, into allowing businesses to thrive with less suffocating government meddling and extreme taxation.

As opposed to the people, who sweat for the sake of the businesses, forcing the business kicking and screaming to let to let them thrive. Oh yeah, I can see how vital this argument is.

I suppose that you are talking about employee compensation. A business could have great employee compensation and very low tax rates. Or they could have terrible employee compensation and very high tax rates. I think that employees should be well rewarded for their efforts and I have never said otherwise. Legally shirking tax duties is an entirelyseparate matter from paying employees reasonable wages and allowing them to thrive.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India

Default on the insurance in the form of CDS's purchased by Goldman Sachs on questionable assets. See my earlier post.

Sold the securities to whom? If they could have sold the troubled assets then they would have already... UNLESS... they were planning on purchasing new insurance planning for the assets to default yet again.

Honestly, I understand they want to make a profit, but if you can tell me that any part of this scheme was ethical then boy do I ever have an investment for you.

Then they would be forced, kicking and screaming, into allowing businesses to thrive with less suffocating government meddling and extreme taxation.

As opposed to the people, who sweat for the sake of the businesses, forcing the business kicking and screaming to let to let them thrive. Oh yeah, I can see how vital this argument is.

I suppose that you are talking about employee compensation.

Not only. I'm also referring to public services, resources and assets that are not in the business interest.

Jormangunder wrote:

A business could have great employee compensation and very low tax rates. Or they could have terrible employee compensation and very high tax rates. I think that employees should be well rewarded for their efforts and I have never said otherwise.

Blind faith, Jormangunder. In reality businesses are all about profit and you, more often, get poor employee compensation regardless of tax rates. Finding a way to skimp on employee benefits and conditions is a way to maximise profit, there's no denying that, taxes have absolutely zip to do with corporate businesses skimping on employee conditions. What a vicious lie.

Jormangunder wrote:

Legally shirking tax duties is an entirely separate matter from paying employees reasonable wages and allowing them to thrive.

Tax is is for public use to build the infrastructure of the community. You know, infrastructure, the stuff society needs to actually function as, among other things but of most interest to corporations, a consumer group, but businesses are loathe to invest in - even though its the very lifeblood they depend on for existence.

Why is it capitalists are so hell bent on this strange delusion of tax as some massive black hole into which profits sink for no reason? That's not what it is.

What exactly is it that Goldman Sachs did wrong? Did they break the law? Which law? Is it morally wrong to make a profit? Is making record profits morally wrong? Morality is subjective.

I think unless you're being facetious that's a terrible question. Making record profits doing what, and why? The whole point of the Glass-Steagall act and separating commercial and investment banking was to protect depositors from risky speculation. The banking industry lobbied for almost thirty years to have it repealed so they could make insane gambles with other people's money, and when the whole system crashes in less than ten years you come in and say "well, they didn't break the law". But that's the whole point. There was a law and there should be one.

It's not generous for them to pay back money they never should have received in the first place so they could operate in a less competitive market with a government mandate and make massive amounts of money with the same high-risk business model that contributed to the problem in the first place.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

What exactly is it that Goldman Sachs did wrong? Did they break the law? Which law? Is it morally wrong to make a profit? Is making record profits morally wrong? Morality is subjective.

I think unless you're being facetious that's a terrible question. Making record profits doing what, and why? The whole point of the Glass-Steagall act and separating commercial and investment banking was to protect depositors from risky speculation. The banking industry lobbied for almost thirty years to have it repealed so they could make insane gambles with other people's money, and when the whole system crashes in less than ten years you come in and say "well, they didn't break the law". But that's the whole point. There was a law and there should be one.

It's not generous for them to pay back money they never should have received in the first place so they could operate in a less competitive market with a government mandate and make massive amounts of money with the same high-risk business model that contributed to the problem in the first place.

What's debatable? It's debatable that some people in society should be totally reckless create havoc and then in a completely asymmetric relationship with the rest of the economy be bailed out with public monies while everyone else loses their fuckin house, car, and job? That's debatable?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

you'd have to be either inhumanly callous or utterly blind to defend this stuff, seriously.

To defend which stuff? The tax situation and the bailout are two unrelated matters. I'm not mad that they are paying little taxes. I am, on the other hand, against their ever recieving any form of bailout. I would have prefered that they go out of business and be replaced by others who would hopefully make better decisions. Aren't they falling back into their old habits? I believe that they will have another easily foreseeable crisis in their future and I believe that they will again be rewarded for their failure by another bailout. But, as much as I am opposed to the bailouts, I am glad that they paid the government back with interest and I have no opposition to how they are legally handling their taxes.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India

you'd have to be either inhumanly callous or utterly blind to defend this stuff, seriously.

To defend which stuff? The tax situation and the bailout are two unrelated matters. I'm not mad that they are paying little taxes. I am, on the other hand, against their ever recieving any form of bailout. I would have prefered that they go out of business and be replaced by others who would hopefully make better decisions. Aren't they falling back into their old habits? I believe that they will have another easily foreseeable crisis in their future and I believe that they will again be rewarded for their failure by another bailout. But, as much as I am opposed to the bailouts, I am glad that they paid the government back with interest and I have no opposition to how they are legally handling their taxes.

Yeah sorry, Jormangunder there's a little unintentional cross-contamination of the sentiment here, this was meant to be as separate from our discussion.

It's good to see your kind of attitude towards this whole "bail-out" nonsense from a proponent of strong capitalism, BTW.

Yeah sorry, Jormangunder there's a little unintentional cross-contamination of the sentiment here, this was meant to be as separate from our discussion.

No problem. I just wanted to make sure that these were seen as two separate issues.

Eloise wrote:

It's good to see your kind of attitude towards this whole "bail-out" nonsense from a proponent of strong capitalism, BTW.

I would go so far as to say that any strong proponent of capitalism should be opposed to corporatist bailouts. I suppose that socialists and capitalists can agree that corporatism is something that shouldn't be engaged in.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India

What's debatable? It's debatable that some people in society should be totally reckless create havoc and then in a completely asymmetric relationship with the rest of the economy be bailed out with public monies while everyone else loses their fuckin house, car, and job? That's debatable?

To claim the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act caused the problem is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.It could have been caused by something else or from a combination of things.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

What's debatable? It's debatable that some people in society should be totally reckless create havoc and then in a completely asymmetric relationship with the rest of the economy be bailed out with public monies while everyone else loses their fuckin house, car, and job? That's debatable?

To claim the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act caused the problem is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.It could have been caused by something else or from a combination of things.

What kind of fallacy is it to say there's no conflict of interest between commercial and investment banking? I though when you said it was debatable that you might actually follow up with something substantive. But all you did was try to dodge the question of what they've done wrong.

When did I say that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the only thing that caused the problem? I didn't say that. But I will listen to nobel prize-winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Ed Prescott, and Paul Krugman who have all written about how the repeal of Glass-Steagall helped to make it worse and believe that these banks should be broken up before I listen to a guy who gets his information from wikipedia.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

This blatant thievery committed against the American Public is yet another point to be hit upon. Even without the bailout: they are not paying their dues to society.

Your thoughts?

The bailout was a big mistake. But let's not forget the crisis was brought on largely by 'compassionate' leftists that believed it was unfair that low income people couldn't get huge mortgage loans they could never afford to repay. So the free market had to be fucked with by massive government intervention.

This just proves my point of how irrational income and profit taxes are. People can find a way to hide this income. If taxes were only for natural resource and service usage, it would be pretty difficult to get away with not paying.

We already have a black market economy for hiding income with a semi-capitalist system. Just think how much more of a black market we would have if we became more socialist. The only way to prevent the black market would be to let big brother run everything. We'd be constantly spied upon in our homes and offices.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Honestly, I understand they want to make a profit, but if you can tell me that any part of this scheme was ethical then boy do I ever have an investment for you.

What's the investment?

A literal puppy farm. Grow them like cattle and sell them for meat in Darfur.

Great. Now some exec at Goldman Sachs will steal the idea and buy insurance on the transports and credit lines for the puppy butcher shops.

There's no law against it in Sudan so that must make it ok. Right?

I realize this is not a valid argument concerning the topic. In fact, I can spot four fallacies if i even try to equivocate credit default swaps with puppy butchering. So, I'll stop there. lol.

aiia,

The money to Goldman Sachs via AIG is taxpayer money aka government money. Making a profit from TARP via Goldman Sachs still means the government is paying itself, while the people who found this scheme are keeping their jobs or floating on golden parachutes.

But I will listen to nobel prize-winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Ed Prescott, and Paul Krugman who have all written about how the repeal of Glass-Steagall helped to make it worse and believe that these banks should be broken up before I listen to a guy who gets his information from wikipedia.

I found 1 reference to Glass-Steagall by Stiglitz. It was his opinion and it was after 1999, meaning it was hindsight. His Noble prize does not guarantee everything he opines is without question.The search for a Prescott or Krugman reference turned up nothing. Any links?Glass himself moved to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999, repealed most of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, the relevant provisions of Glass-Steagall were not repealed.

Quote:

The whole point of the Glass-Steagall act and separating commercial and investment banking was to protect depositors from risky speculation.

Depositors are still protected.

Most of the weight of blame for the crises is falling on Greenspan leaving the interest rates to low too long.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

I must admit that I find it annoying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't read their own sources. Do you realize that the link you posted says this:

Quote:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has called Senator Phil Gramm "the father of the financial crisis" due to his sponsorship of the Act.[24]

So you disagree with nobel prize-winning economists because what they say is in hindsight, but you bring up that Carter Glass supposedly thought the act was too harsh after it was passed (in hindsight). He obviously didn't try too hard to repeal it; he was a member of congress for another 12 years until he died and it was considered to be the greatest achievement of his career.

And it's not just those guys. I could give you a list of more than a dozen of the worlds top economists who say that these insolvent bank should be broken up.Of course now I know that it would be a waste of my time because you're just quote mining and being contradictory, probably in an attempt to defend some sort of misguided political views. I hope you know that the current president of the US who's not even an economist disagrees with you about the repeal of Glass–Steagall, and before you ask me for a source on that look at the link you posted yourself.

Your comments about depositors still being protected and the relevant provisions still being in place are too vague to even comment on (and right now I assume nothing more than ill-informed assumptions on your part).

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Look, I'm not trying to blow things out of proportion but it's kind of a hassle for me to investigate links that people put up just so I can read 40 paragraphs of some boring shit about how I'm wrong supposedly. If it was Reuters then I could say at least I was reading Reuters but it was wikipedia. But I'll accept your insincere and sarcastic apology anyway even though you made me read garbage you wouldn't bother reading yourself.

I didn't claim or pretend to be an expert in economics or US government I'm just one of the probably billions of people in the world who hates banks and bankers.

I hate them because they come in with these arcane systems that people don't really understand, have regulations and laws removed that prevent the banks from becoming systemic risks, then when the things happen that the regulations were put in place to prevent they come back like hijackers and say "Now if the bank fails the whole economy will fail. GIVE US MONEY!" And because people are corrupt they collude with the banks instead of just breaking them up and putting the regulations back in place so a bunch of old vultures can come in like pirates and loot entire nations.

All I was saying from the beginning was that if I could have the laws of nations changed when I wanted to break them then I could say I've never done anything wrong either.

EDIT: I also believe you're not representing Rodin very well quite frankly. That guy was a genius. His sculptures were so life like that he was accused of using molds of live models. He deserved better than this.

La Danaïde

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

B used some of the money to buy insurance from C on A defaulting to Wells Fargo and then only made a payment on loan to Wells Fargo.

Paulson (et al) declared A,B,C, and Wells Fargo to be 'too big to fail' and gave them all money to use to pay ON (not pay off) their debts to each other including credit default insurance claims.

80% of shit is still shit and all shit is dirty and needs flushing.

They're calling it 'risk management' when in actuality they are literally banking on the failure of their investment prior to it being devalued because of other factors and you seem to be excusing it as 'good business'.

At least ten states in the US are on the verge of bankruptcy and they're going to start to sell and lease their infrastructure to these banks who'll come in just like AIG did in Kentucky , to buy utilities and raise the price of water by more than 50%. Yeah...water. But I guess there's nothing wrong with them taking the bailout money and making a profit even if they're making a profit by fleecing the people who have to pay for the bailout with their tax money right?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

You are not "having a hard time", you are just fucking ignorant. You are about as informed on the core issues as an average monkey. Must be a fun world from up there, swinging from tree to tree, never bothering with purpose and granularity of complex systems. I envy people like you sometimes.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

But I will listen to nobel prize-winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Ed Prescott, and Paul Krugman who have all written about how the repeal of Glass-Steagall helped to make it worse and believe that these banks should be broken up before I listen to a guy who gets his information from wikipedia.

I found 1 reference to Glass-Steagall by Stiglitz. It was his opinion and it was after 1999, meaning it was hindsight. His Noble prize does not guarantee everything he opines is without question.The search for a Prescott or Krugman reference turned up nothing. Any links?Glass himself moved to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999, repealed most of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, the relevant provisions of Glass-Steagall were not repealed.

The relevant provision in this context are the restrictions on the amount and interest rate on financial institution borrowing from public funds. Those restrictions were removed by allowing merger with commercial institutions. It wasn't a perfect bill to start with and it failed at its purpose many times, but it is an indicator of how things can be done. Since you are digging around 1999 and repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, you should listen to Senator Byron Dorgan's floor speech on the issue during deliberations.

aiia wrote:

Quote:

The whole point of the Glass-Steagall act and separating commercial and investment banking was to protect depositors from risky speculation.

Depositors are still protected.

Most of the weight of blame for the crises is falling on Greenspan leaving the interest rates to low too long.

No, depositors are not protected. A huge number of depositors have been laid off from work (500.000 a month for over a year now), many have lost everything, including their homes, 45 thousand (by most recent estimate over 80 thousand) are dieing because of lack of medical coverage per year, many public billions are spent on private bail-outs, while there are huge figts over even the most rudimentary protections for the average depositor - all of it tied in the way business is done.

And about placing the blame on a single man and a single set of policies past 15 years, you have got to be kidding me. Low interest rate is just a conductor for a massive overhaul of real industry and creation of debt- and credit-based anti-economy that has been going on for a century. The system is firmly in the state of constant expanding bubble. The last burst did not deflate anything, rather it poses as another indicator of what's underneath. Our economic Titanic just scratched the tip of the iceberg and its already leaning over to one side.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

You are not "having a hard time", you are just fucking ignorant. You are about as informed on the core issues as an average monkey. Must be a fun world from up there, swinging from tree to tree, never bothering with purpose and granularity of complex systems. I envy people like you sometimes.

Dude. The times article read as biased to me.

AND the pdf took forever to open and when I read it, I felt like I was being proselytized. Just because an organization says it is 'unbiased' or even 501(c)3 doesn't mean it adheres to the rules of being either.

I am afraid it is you that is exhibiting ignorance. You posted two links declaring them to be unbiased and yet they are closer to political documents than mein kampf.

The 'tax burdens shifted to the states' tables on page 7(10) of the pdf were calculated using THEIR OWN ESTIMATIONS NOT ACTUAL SUMS DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE ELSE!

Why is that? Because, dumbass, we don't know exactly how much money falls into this category. Nor do we know how much US money is held in offshore banks because of the confidentiality agreements with the account holders.

Now before you get all mad and cry while trying to type telling me that you think these are unbiased reports concerning the OP and anyone's response, I want to ask in a sincere manner "What the fuck is wrong with you?"

Sapient stays as or better informed than any of my friends and thank goodness I know some smart people. You aren't included in that list, ZuS.